Vol.X 



'893 



Elliot on the Genus Pitta. 1 85 



of the adverse criticism and practice of my ornithological friends 

 in the Old World, and in my forthcoming monograph of the 

 family the species will appear under the names as given by Dr. 

 Stejneger. 



But on one or two points I find myself unable to agree with 

 my friend's views, and although perhaps they may not be of very 

 especial importance so far as the Pittas are concerned, yet as 

 the conclusion Dr. Stejneger has reached would seem to ante- 

 date the publication of the 'Analyse' by the 'Nouveau Diction- 

 naire,' and so seriously affect many genera and species published 

 in the former work, it is perhaps as well to consider the value of 

 the evidence our author relies upon to maintain his position. 

 His proofs, why the 'Analyse' was the last published, are that 

 quite a number of names contained in that work are not found 

 in the first four volumes of the 'Nouveau Dictionnaire' ; conse- 

 quently the latter must have been issued first, and although 

 under the name Asturia cinerea, Vol. Ill, a reference is made 

 to the 'Analyse,' yet as no page is given, this is an additional 

 reason that the 'Dictionnaire' was published first. These are, 

 I believe, all the proofs presented by Dr. Stejneger, and on which 

 he rests his case. 



Let us see, therefore, how the evidence obtained from a careful 

 investigation of the work in question affects his position. The 

 'Analyse' is dated 1S16. With no evidence to the contrary we 

 must acknowledge that it was published during that year. The 

 'Nouveau Dictionnaire' is in a great measure a recapitulation of 

 the 1803 edition, somewhat amplified, but the revision and addi- 

 tion of new matter, so far as Vieillot is concerned, is done hastily 

 and imperfectly. The fact that the thirty-six volumes were issued 

 in four years shows how rapid was the publication — Vols. I-VI 

 in 1S16, Vols. VII-XVIII and XXV in 1817, Vols. XIX-XXIV 

 and XXVI-XXVIII in 1S1S, and Vols. XXIX-XXXVI in 1819, 

 — or, in 1S16 one volume every two months, in 1817 more than 

 one a month, in 1818 one in a little over a month, and in 1819 a 

 little over one every two months. (It is possible that the date of 

 Vol. XXV (1817) is a typographical error.) If, therefore, the 

 revision of these volumes was accomplished anywhere near the 

 dates of their publication, it need cause no surprise that omis- 

 sions occur in them. Dr. Stejneger's argument affects only the 



